All Photons Move at 300,000km/s.... But Don't?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by TruthSeeker, Jun 12, 2015.

  1. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    moved to pseudoscience... and honestly that's being generous...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Rajesh is now on ignore. It's amazing how much time that saves in scrolling by his nonsense and bitching.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,191

    Sorry Kris, I missed your post.
    Firstly the Planck level is the same as the quantum level.
    GR is a classical theory of gravity. It is not a theory of the quantum/Planck level. We need a QGT for that.
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,191
    All the questions in the previous post have been answered before, but just as jcc is apt at doing, if the agenda behind the question is not satisfied in the answer, the answer is then ignored.
    That has been evident in this thread and the other threads started by Rajesh in his effort of pushing his version of cosmology.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,191
    See? This is why you lack BH cosmological knowledge.
    You have this thing....after perusing a few books, [none of which you have disclosed and going on your view probably from some crank ratbag] that you are able to rewrite all that we currently know on this topic....That's it pure and simple, and as someone described you, your bull-headed attitude, cannot see past your navel. You appear to believe something as fanciful as you being the bastion of cosmological knowledge....which raises my question again, and which you so far have cunningly avoided, as you did exchemist's question....
    that question being............
    The fact remains, you are no Chandra or Eddington or even a cosmologist, correct? [of course]
    And yet you expect we should all ignore what we read from reputable links, what reputable Professors tell us, and what the majority of the forum accepts, in favour of your cosmologically enlightened view. Is that correct?
    And please note...it is a legitimate question that it appears you do not have the guts enough to answer. Why? I'll tell you why. Because it actually goes right to the crux of this matter with you, as well as other "would be's if they could be's"
    You come to a science forum, claim present accepted cosmology is wrong, and to support that illusion you hold in your own mind, you refuse to accept any reputable link or any other professional knowledge on how wrong you are.

    You need to come down from your ivory tower, and accept that you are just one of us ordinary folk. You are not a scientist of any sort, despite what you may believe. You do not hold all the answers....you cannot rewrite all of cosmology from your lofty position....You do not have access to all the state of the art equipment.....you are not at the coal face with the giants of cosmology. You are here on this science forum, and that defines who you are, along with your contributions and posts, as most of us are and are defined.
    Although there are exceptions in that we probably have some scientists like rpenner for example, the bulk of us are ordinary folk, and that includes your self.

    I hope the following helps......
     
  9. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    The answers given by Paddoboy for all the e questions is vague, and meaningless...

    GR does not fail at Planck's level. GR fails at r = o, that too in reference to classic point singularity, for any other non zero point, the curvature is finite and well defined, so the question of failure does not arise. I will again state, that classic point singularity at r = 0 is a problem, so Physicist are expecting (speculating) that QGT may resolve the singularity business even before r = 0 is reached that is at at the level of Lp. Thats it, thats the speculation, it does not mean that GR fails at Planck's level.

    And moreover there is nothing like Planck's level is same as Quantum Level, it means nothing.


    You do not answer the question, you are just naively attempting to describe the Photo Electric Effect. The link which you have given, is a good tutorial, but does not answer the question. We are not discussing about the basics of Photo Electric Effect, I just questioned you what is the relationship between motion of Photon and PEE which you attempted to link with, you are still avoiding.

    Let me tell you, and that will answer Exchemist also, in this thread somewhere down the line discussion came up on radiation pressure, Quantum mechanics explains this phenomenon based on particle nature of light by considering change in momentum (h/Lambda) due to strike of photon [classically also an attempt can be made to explain the same by considering Poynting vector, strike area and absorbed energy].

    In case of Photo Electric Effect, there is no such linkage between momentum of photon and ejection of electrons from the surface of the target plate. What matters is the minimum threshold frequency (and thus the energy of striking photon) to eject the surface electrons. Momentum and thus the motion plays no role. Yes, if you are referring to arrival / reaching of light up to the target plate, then its ok, but then that has nothing to do with PEE. Moreover the duality of light is context specific, if it travels from A (Source) to B (Experimental plate, slit etc), the motion till that point does not have much relevance.

    Again the question is not answered. Just taking shelter in some links. The solar radiation (or EM radiation) affects everything it strikes irrespective of magnitude, which may be extremely small. Yes, solar panels on the space station (or even at Earth) do feel the solar radiation pressure. even you and me feel when we are exposed to light, but magnitude is too small. For example if the mars Mission had not considered the Solar Radiation Pressure, the vehicle would have been off by 15000-20000 Kms....
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2015
  10. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Moved to pseudoscience!?
    Hopefully not anything I said...
    It started as a good discussion, but got a little weird in the middle....
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,191
    Not your fault mate...the poster above you
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,191
    Only for someone that has a vindictive agenda like yourself and as just about everyone has agreed..

    GR most certainly is a classical theory of gravity. It is not a theory of the quantum/Planck level. We need a QGT for that.and you can keep denying that till the cows come home, and that fact will not change.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The classical point singularity of course is outside the zone of applicability of GR and actually GR predicting it's own downfall.
    Most though do not believe that will ever be reached and as such a QGT will most probably reveal a surface of sorts at between the quantum/Planck level and the point singularity.
    Wrong again.....In fact the Planck/quantum level are basically the same.
    http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module6_Planck.htm
    The Planck scale: relativity meets quantum mechanics meets gravity.
    Yet your question was answered to the satisfaction of the forum as a whole.
    Are you trolling, because I demolished [or help demolish your BNS?
    Perhaps you need to examine your childish ignorant motives.
    It's certainly hard to believe that anyone on a science forum is ignorant as to the photoelectric effect/Photons and momentum connections, and even further astoudingly stupid when someone fails to know the differences between solar/Light sails and solar panels.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    That is quite laughable in fact.
    Yet you are wrong again.....
    The photoelectric effect showed that light was much more complicated than the simple wave analogy that was thought of at that time.
    Light as a particle [photon] helped explain this, and of course the photon needs to be moving and have the required amount of energy.
    If light didn't move of course, would we have the photoelectric effect?
    http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/lm/ch34/ch34.html#Section34.1
    But I must say that exchemist gave a well structured answer also which you have refused to answer.

    Now you are just being plain dumb and skirting around the support you gave jcc, and his statement that the ISS solar panels should move the ISS.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    here it is once again.....
    What are solar/light sails?
    http://sail.planetary.org/
    http://www.space.com/8748-solar-sail-passes-big-test-deep-space.html
    http://www.space.com/23162-nasa-sunjammer-solar-sail-test-complete.html
    In essence solar/light sails are a form of spacecraft propulsion using the radiation pressure from the Sun or other stars to push ultra-thin state of the art materials to ever increasing speeds.
    Solar Panels:
    Solar panels are an efficient way of absorbing the Sun's energy to produce electrical for heating and other power sources.

    All accepted facts Rajesh, and all are now showing that you are a bull headed troll. No wonder at least two members have you on ignore.
    But don't worry, I'll be here to keep you honest...promise!
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,191
    The question for you to answer....
    The fact remains, you are no Chandra or Eddington or even a cosmologist, correct? [of course]
    And yet you expect we should all ignore what we read from reputable links, what reputable Professors tell us, and what the majority of the forum accepts, in favour of your cosmologically enlightened view. Is that correct?

    If you cannot or will not answer, then we all can assume that
    it actually goes right to the crux of this matter with you, as well as other "would be's if they could be's"
    You come to a science forum, claim present accepted cosmology is wrong, and to support that illusion you hold in your own mind, you refuse to accept any reputable link or any other professional knowledge on how wrong you are.
    You are blinded by the illusion of your own self Importance and supposed greatness and ignore all that has gone before you.
     
  14. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    Paddoboy,

    It is not done....whatever you have written above makes no sense with respect to the 3 questions...You are just evading the questions and taking shelter in long unreadable copy paste........Take the help of your friends and let them respond on my post #446 (which covers and quotes your answer to all the 3 questions)
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,191
    Whatever I'm taking shelter in does not compare to the fact that you are sheltering in your own ego and bull headiness.
    The questions are all answered to the satisfaction of all bar you and jcc.
    I think I can live with that.
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,191
    I have a better idea. Why not garnish the help of your friends in support of your nonsense. Last time I looked they were dropping like flies!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    [Although jcc should support you.]
     
  17. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    When he gets back from his ban.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  18. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    Exchemist,

    Even though you are with Chemistry background but these issues may not be much alien to you, you have rigorously taken up this momentum/PEE issue with me, I have answered in my post #446, may be you can respond if I have gone wrong anywhere. I personally feel that after such a prolonged cross with Paddoboy, things must be concluded and if I am found guilty of trolling and creating problems in the forum, I am willing to go. Mods who are conversant with these 3 points may also clarify their positions. We will stick to scientific argument only, even though most of my posts for Paddoboy are silly, but the objective was not to let the fallacy of Paddoboy continue. I stick to my ground that this guy kills any meaningful discussion.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,191
    On the above issue, if you were not so obsessed with "paddoboy" and "pedant" you would be aware that jcc raised the solar panels, in a stupid debate about light having no momentum because it has no mass....hence he could not see the objectivity and practical application of solar sails......light weight flexible material to take advantage of the minimal momentum from Sunlight/starlight.
    Yep light certainly applies a pressure on everything but at minimal figures...or to use the explanation from the link you got your example off at WIKI.....
    The forces generated by radiation pressure are generally too small to be detected under everyday circumstances


    So while you are correct in that assumption re solar radiative pressure, it was not the the heart of what jcc was pushing.
    All you did was jump on the pedant bandwagon.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I certainly still stand by my claim with jcc and the fact generally speaking the forces are too small to be detected...remembering jcc was denying photon momentum due to photons having no rest mass.
    You may have done better if you had read the whole argument.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2015
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,191
    You mean like your BNS?
    Nice post rajesh, nice change of heart I see.
     
  21. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    Thank you !! So Q3 is settled.

    I don't know what jcc was pushing, but you made a very strong and categorical statement negating the effect of radiation pressure on Solar Panels.........possibly you could not visualize (in one go) solar sails and solar panels both having radiation pressure effect.
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,191

    You do know what jcc was pushing, its there in black and white....and as far as being "settled" is concerned, the crazy notion objected to was by jcc and on that score he has not retracted....not that I care, I corrected him among others, and made the point he was totally wrong. I will though continue to correct him if he claims such nonsense again, just as I will to the best of my ability with any alternative nonsense.
    As usual your little sly dig about me visualising "all at once" is just you...we have grown used to your condescending nature.
    Like I said, radiative pressure by light is well known but as far as on the solar panels of the ISS, the effect is negligible and you know that.
    That was the crux of the matter with jcc. nothing more, nothing less.
    Now all we need to settle with you is
    [1] finally agreeing your BNS is impossible.
    [2] Recognising that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached we have compulsory collapse.
    [3] Gravity overcomes all forces within a BH
    [4] GR is not applicable at the quantum/Planck level
    [5] Photoelectric effect gave rise to the photon model of light and by association and observation of the photoelectric effect itself, also momentum.

    And the question you have yet to answer at post 450.
    That, as I said, goes to the crux of your apparent problem.
     
  23. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,539
    Ah yes I've now read that post. In it you state the following:

    " In case of Photo Electric Effect, there is no such linkage between momentum of photon and ejection of electrons from the surface of the target plate. What matters is the minimum threshold frequency (and thus the energy of striking photon) to eject the surface electrons. Momentum and thus the motion plays no role."

    What you seem to be overlooking, Rajesh, is that the momentum of a photon, p = h/λ, and so p ∝ frequency. So in fact the photoelectric effect does indeed depend precisely on the momentum of the incident photons.

    Remember de Broglie's relation: momentum is proportional to frequency for a QM wave-particle.
     

Share This Page